Wow I'll bet the probability of getting RNA to do both functions, to form spontaneously to some minimum length, to spin off DNA as a minor side issue and Trna as well is up from 10**-10000 to say 10**-5000 see its twice as likely LOL LOL !!!

You really ought to get in the real world sometime by reading Origins by Shapiro or Crick or any of the other 100 scientists of renown who walked away from this absolute impossibility a decade ago.

The little green man in the flying saucer or panspermia is a better choice.

Hyperbole and humor are pretty legitimate methods of argumentation, but you wireheads and squirrels wouldn't recognize either.

On the other hand the point is that Origins author Robert Shapiro has analyzed this "unimportant and unrelated separate and dismissed non-evolutionary area of abiogenesis" from a to z including the dna first, rna first, protein first and as usual has degreed that no matter how you dice it the odds of obtaining even the simplest, crude, least error prone replicator from the "soup" or any other habitat on the early earth requires considerably more time than the age of the earth itself ,(and the solar system for that matter).

Funny how this "unimportant and unrelated separate and dismissed non-evolutionary area of abiogenesis" keeps getting million of grant dollars, papers published, books written and is supported in full by Chaisson at Tufts and many,many others yet not a shred of believable evidence can support it.

I think I'll suggest IDers just be satisfied to have Shapiros book in every biology class for two weeks in every semester and be presented openly. He is a great scientist, researcher, biologist, author and theorist of signifficance. When he concludes that every theory is impossible and we must await new laws of the universe to explain how life came to be.. it will be most enlightening to the students of America.

Origins has little to do with Darwinism - you should know better. Shapiro's book is a good introduction, but things have advanced in 20 years - we know ribozymes exist for starters. I think you're being a tad disingenuous.

Yes since that book was published Shapiro has published books bordering on cultic religion such as Life Force joining other discouraged evolutionists Crick and otheres in psuudo sciences such as panspermia because every rational analysis of origins and abiogenesis is so nearly infinitely impossible it engenders such nonsense.

As for ribozymes they are a form of RNA and only in carefully prepared experiments in a controlled environment under the design and watchcare of scientists was any replication successful and it required guess what an RNA template, hardly the conditions of the prebiotic earth... without a scientist I suspect. Oh and a whopping 14 molecule chain was replicated as I recall... now what does that compare to.....nothing involved in life.

Shapiros work stands the test of time.

I recommend a little read of this web page and a brief review of Chaisson's writings and reputation before you try that revisionist baloney on me about "little to do with Darwinism". http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

Your team is stuck with evidenceing "helium gas to the human brain by random processes" and you can count on it being well known.

evopeach I hope you are happy in your ignorance, but abiogenesis research is a fruitful area of science - it alone gave us the possibility of ribozymes through the RNA world postulate. What did creationism ever generate?

I think Shapiro would be shocked and shamed by your abuse of his work.

First if you can point out one error in my analysis of Shapiros book that might make your rediculous statement have some congency. The sub-title is "A Skeptics Guide...." Seems like he was intent on laying out the facts with both pro and con expressed .. see thats what is called "Intellectual Honesty".

Lets see I have a library on the subject that has some 20 year old books largely still acurate and written by your preeminent scientists.... and you complain.

Your theory rests on the writings from a 120 year old book by a mentally deranged manic depressive without an earned doctorate, a theological drop-out, no math training, no physics training, pre-molecular biology, pre-atomic theory, pre-genetic code and when protoplasm was the height of the knowledge of the cell.

And you think my reading is out of date... LOL.

Abiogenesis has been an active area for 100 years without a single hint of success and made mathmatically laughable by the best and brightest in your own camp.

Oh! I have a reproduction of Mathmatica Principia also ... should we toss it as well.

Tell me three things you think evolution has predicted that have been proven true experimentally and are without dispute in your own community that depend on a world view excluding the creation of life by an intellegent designer adequate to explain life as we see it with identified ranges of variation in form and feature within kinds.

Get a new bookie who understands that one time special creation affords no cogent calculation of probabilities.

Unlike the trillion step process from helium gas to the human brain where your own camp makes calculations of improbability that stagger the imagination, cannot be appreciated and are beyond the reach of the time since the big bang as in the simplest imaginable replicator in consensus beinging about 10**-50 under the best scenario.

Whats with all your made up on the spot probabilites? I guess thats creation "science" in action. How can you make demands that have NOTHING to do with biological evolution, but refuse to answer questions about your special Jesus singularity creation extravaganza, and if thats what happened, isn't the probability of it having occured 1:1? Which is far from being undeterminable as you describe. You have no alternative mechanisms, offer no alternative theory, you just have some stupid helium to the human brain argument, that you call your, "silver bullet." Guess what? The emperor has no clothes.

This is an excerpt from Chris Colby's faq at talkorigins.org:

Quote

Evolution is not progress. The popular notion that evolution can be represented as a series of improvements from simple cells, through more complex life forms, to humans (the pinnacle of evolution), can be traced to the concept of the scale of nature. This view is incorrect.

All species have descended from a common ancestor. As time went on, different lineages of organisms were modified with descent to adapt to their environments. Thus, evolution is best viewed as a branching tree or bush, with the tips of each branch representing currently living species. No living organisms today are our ancestors. Every living species is as fully modern as we are with its own unique evolutionary history. No extant species are "lower life forms," atavistic stepping stones paving the road to humanity.

A related, and common, fallacy about evolution is that humans evolved from some living species of ape. This is not the case -- humans and apes share a common ancestor. Both humans and living apes are fully modern species; the ancestor we evolved from was an ape, but it is now extinct and was not the same as present day apes (or humans for that matter). If it were not for the vanity of human beings, we would be classified as an ape. Our closest relatives are, collectively, the chimpanzee and the pygmy chimp. Our next nearest relative is the gorilla.

OVERVIEW: EVOLUTION AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY (PDF) ... What is Evolution? Biological evolution consists of change in the hereditary characteristics of groups ... common consequence of natural selection is adaptation, an improvement in the ...faculty.evansville.edu/de3/b39903/PDFs/2-Intro_evol.pdf - 101k - View as html - More from this site -

There are about 10,000 references to improvement and evolution on Google. How can a species organism et al be more fit and thus more likely to survive if it not an improvement relative to its prior state within the context of its environment and surroundings.

What does Dawkins mean when he says " an eye that is only able see well enough to detect a blurly preditor and escape extinction is "better" than a sensitive light spot or no eye at all."

As usual the evos have utter confusion over what their theory means, its core definitions and implcations. Is there any tenet of evolution that your camp agrees on ... just one please.

"modified with decent to adapt to their environment" another statement at 100% conflict with any number of statements by leading evolutionists. Evolution has no direction, no purpose, no plan it is the product of random mutation at the genetic level giving rise to totally unplanned changes in the organisms form and function. The environment then is either hostile to or supportive of those changes and the organism is either as a species more reproductively successful or it is made extinct. In no sense does the organism "adapt to the environment" in fact the environment adapts it either to continued life or to death, as a species.

Every extant species is as "fully modern" as we are. Are modern cars, appliances or anything tangible not better or improved in form and function relative to the older outdated versions? Laughable inconsistency.

I dont know one person who thinks we are decended from an extant life form... strawman as usual.

You know I actually feel sorry for you.. so ignorant.. clinging to a pseudoscience that is logically vacuous,, intellectually barren... based on untenable and unproveable gross and rediculously impossible assumptions and fraught with internal inconsistancies on even the most basic of your tenets.

Were you just too dumb to get a degree in a field requiring extensive study in the hard sciences and took the easy way out?

I mean math goes a little farther than long division.

Of course you never have answered a single point of debate just gibberish and invective.... very impressive ... LOL

If that statement is so laughable to you, take it up with Chris Colby over at talkorigins.

I think you need serious psychotherapy, or have yourself hooked up to the Super VII Neural Pathomizer or whatver invention that whackjob L. Ron Hubbard invented.

You love to talk about spontaneous generation. Those creationist scientists responsible for almost all of science (which is true from a certain point of view) also thought eels were spontaneously generated if a horse hair was dropped overboard into the sea. Then we discovered the Sargasso Sea, and baby eels weren't made by horse hairs anymore.

Just like we found the Sargasso Sea, we found evolution. Suddenly everything made sense, the geologic column, the fossil record, the large concentrations of marsupials in Austrailia. If you say continental drift (which AiG supports) isolated the marsupials it makes sense. If you tell me people departed post-Babel with a koala in one arm and a wallaby in the other, that doesn't. If you tell me insects survived the Noahic Flood by building rafts, that doesn't make sense either. Evolution provides answers that the Bible can't even touch on.

There is religion. There is science. If your God insists on living only within the margins of science, I see why you want to keep those margins wide. Furthermore, what kind of geek prints his arguments on the internet to show to his professor? Get a wife kid.

If that statement is so laughable to you, take it up with Chris Colby over at talkorigins.

No you quote him as someone you are in agreement with, reference, an appeal to authority, that makes it yours to defend... moron.

I think you need serious psychotherapy, or have yourself hooked up to the Super VII Neural Pathomizer or whatver invention that whackjob L. Ron Hubbard invented.

I hardly think my lifetime as a protestant believer would leads anyone top conclude I an in any way tied to Scientology. Just more illogical claptrap.. you are ptitful you know.

You love to talk about spontaneous generation. Those creationist scientists responsible for almost all of science (which is true from a certain point of view) also thought eels were spontaneously generated if a horse hair was dropped overboard into the sea. Then we discovered the Sargasso Sea, and baby eels weren't made by horse hairs anymore.

Never once made mention of that term as you place it historically. Nice try but just another dishonest illogical fallacy on your part.

Just like we found the Sargasso Sea, we found evolution. Suddenly everything made sense, the geologic column, ( doesn't exist any where ; no worldwide non-conformity ever found)

the fossil record,

( the greates t failure and least conformatory of any non-biological evidence)

the large concentrations of marsupials in Austrailia. If you say continental drift (which AiG supports) isolated the marsupials it makes sense. If you tell me people departed post-Babel with a koala in one arm and a wallaby in the other, that doesn't.

(rediculous straw man and you know it)

If you tell me insects survived the Noahic Flood by building rafts, that doesn't make sense either.

I didn't but they easily could and its seen all teh time in rivers and local floods; not buildoing but simply catching a ride.

Evolution provides answers that the Bible can't even touch on. The Bible is a finished work and doesn't change. The Bible's answers are based on truth , evolution on lies and distortions.

There is religion. There is science. If your God insists on living only within the margins of science, I see why you want to keep those margins wide. Furthermore, what kind of geek prints his arguments on the internet to show to his professor? Get a wife kid.

I have no profs I am an employee and have peers and the prof doesn't read I gave them to him to read.

If evolution, the most significant, pervasive, and profound theory in all science is merely "pseudo-science" (as you claim) then we're in some serious trouble.

But, as this little theory is at the heart of every significant practical advance in modern medicine and biology -- well, I think something is a bit off here...

"based on untenable and unproveable gross and rediculously impossible assumptions"

Actually the assumptions underlying evolutionary principles are quite plausible and, interestingly, broadly applicable. One might even be so inclined to describe the progression of creationist arguments as "evolutionary". You know, an incremental adaptation to the prevailing environment...

"I mean math goes a little farther than long division."

Indeed. And cognition did not end in the 18th century. Perhaps you'd like to join us in the 21st?

You really ought to get in the real world sometime by reading Origins by Shapiro or Crick or any of the other 100 scientists of renown who walked away from this absolute impossibility a decade ago.

Walked away from what "absolute impossibility"? I haven't read Shapiro, but I have read Crick. So far as I know he never suggested that anything other than chemical origins of life - wherever that occurred - was a plausible explanation.